Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wisconsin v. Torinus, 9 N.W. 725.

32 citing documents.

Gary Frodermann, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
EDF-RE US Development, LLC v. RES America Construction, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
EDF-RE US Development, LLC v. RES America Construction, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Chun King Sales, Inc. v. County of St. Louis 98 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 1959
Chun King Sales, Inc. v. County of St. Louis 98 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 1959
Koch v. Koch 264 N.W. 791 Minn. 1936
Koch v. Koch 264 N.W. 791 Minn. 1936
State of Wisconsin v. Torinus, 28 Minn. 175 , ; Mathews v. Hennepin County Sav.
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Baune 239 N.W. 598 Minn. 1931
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Baune 239 N.W. 598 Minn. 1931
It is not identity of subject matter (Wisconsin v. Torinus, 28 Minn. 175 , ) but identity of the claim or demand actually litigated, decided, and settled by judgment that estops plaintiff.
Gustafson v. Gustafson 226 N.W. 412 Minn. 1929
Gustafson v. Gustafson 226 N.W. 412 Minn. 1929
(As to the necessity for distinguishing constantly between identity of subject matter of litigation and the very different thing designated as the identity of causes of action arising from the same subject matter, see State of Wisconsin v. Torinus, 28 Minn. 175 , .)
Colby v. Street 209 N.W. 537 Minn. 1926
Colby v. Street 209 N.W. 537 Minn. 1926
To take plaintiff’s case out of the field of operation of the rule, State of Wisconsin v. Torinus, 28 Minn. 175 , , is cited.
Driscoll v. Board of County Commissioners 201 N.W. 945 Minn. 1925
Driscoll v. Board of County Commissioners 201 N.W. 945 Minn. 1925
State v. Torinus, 28 Minn. 175 , 9 *
Seastrand v. D. A. Foley & Co. 175 N.W. 117 Minn. 1919
Seastrand v. D. A. Foley & Co. 175 N.W. 117 Minn. 1919
State of Wisconsin v. Torinus, 28 Minn. 175 , .
State ex rel. City of St. Paul v. Great Northern Railway Co. 158 N.W. 972 Minn. 1916
State ex rel. City of St. Paul v. Great Northern Railway Co. 158 N.W. 972 Minn. 1916
In State v. Torinus, 28 Minn. 175 , , it is said that “a former adjudication never affects after acquired rights;” that “intervening events, affecting the issue, may be shown to prevent a former judgment from being conclusive;” and that “an estoppel, though admissible in a case precisely the same with that adjudged, has no application to o
Liimatainen v. St. Louis River Dam & Improvement Co. 137 N.W. 1099 Minn. 1912
Liimatainen v. St. Louis River Dam & Improvement Co. 137 N.W. 1099 Minn. 1912
n by splitting up a cause of action and prosecuting more than one suit thereon; the penalty imposed by the law for the violation of this rule being the application of the doctrine of res adjudicata, which doctrine is based upon the legal maxims that “a man should not be twice vexed for the same cause,” and that “it is for the public *242 good that there be an end of litigation.” State v. Torinus, 28 Minn. 175 , .
Nye v. Kahlow 107 N.W. 733 Minn. 1906
Rossman v. Tilleny 83 N.W. 42 Minn. 1900
Rossman v. Tilleny 83 N.W. 42 Minn. 1900
Linne v. Stout, 44 Minn. 110 , ; State v. Torinus, 28 Minn. 175 , ; Henrietta v. Barrett (Tex.
Eide v. Clarke 68 N.W. 98 Minn. 1896
Eide v. Clarke 68 N.W. 98 Minn. 1896
He contends that it was merely the ca,se of an action prematurely brought, and no bar to the bringing of a subsequent action after his cause of action had in the meantime accrued, and cites such cases as State of Wisconsin v. Torinus, 28 Minn. 175 , , and Oleson v. Merrihew, 45 Wis.
Woodcock v. Carlson 52 N.W. 142 Minn. 1892
Woodcock v. Carlson 52 N.W. 142 Minn. 1892
State v. Torinus, 28 Minn. 175 , ( 9 N. W. Rep.
Craver v. Christian 26 N.W. 8 Minn. 1885
Craver v. Christian 26 N.W. 8 Minn. 1885
State v. Torinus, 28 Minn. 175 .
Coles v. Yorks 17 N.W. 341 Minn. 1883
Coles v. Yorks 17 N.W. 341 Minn. 1883
104 ; and see State of Wisconsin v. Torinus, 28 Minn. 175 .